3 ms·

I live in a country in which women get a lot of time off after giving birth, men get some days and every family receives monthly cheques for one or two years af

by thefz 7y ago

I live in a country in which women get a lot of time off after giving birth, men get some days and every family receives monthly cheques for one or two years after a baby is born. A new family can rake up a lot of free money either directly or with discounts, preferential treatment, bonuses, and support. I'm against any type of incentive for newborns, because it all comes from the state, which means public money, which means taxes. I don't want to pay for other people's two-year vacation leave in which they play happy family while their employer is missing an employee and getting compensation with public money. To me, if you can't or won't work, you must be replaced.

CalRobert 7y ago
Is your country in a place with low birthrates and propping up its population with immigration? I don't think your view is inconsistent, necessarily, but it comes down to different views about the role of the state, whether new generations are important, etc. Anyway, in some ways we should be doing what we can do reduce birthrates as much as possible before we destroy ourselves and our life support system, but on the other hand making it possible for people to engage in about the most basic function of being an animal without destroying their lives isn't all bad.
- thefz 7y ago
  Low birthrates yes, just like any other European country, with the added pressure of a strong catholic presence. The state has been encouraging births as long as I remember. And while on one hand I can appreciate that everything is for the well being of newborns and a better society tomorrow, on the other all I notice are those who exploit this system to have years and years of paid leave and benefits. It's just as libertarian as it gets, but if you can't feed them, don't make them. And I don't want my tax money to go into a safety net for people who made very poor life decisions.
  - fastbeef 7y ago
    Will you be happier with the tax money in your pocket and your local economy in the pits due to population aging?
    - thefz 7y ago
      Human population on earth has been rising since we're here. Just 100 years ago nobody would ever thought about spending public money to make new humans, and I think we all turned out fine. The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption, because in many countries incentives are not in place, and you don't hear of economies collapsing and the elderly swarming the streets in search of food because people don't pop just the right amount of babies to reach the replacement rate. And again, we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in a system of limited resources.
      - CalRobert 7y ago
        100 years ago life was pretty different. It was assumed mom would be home with kids, possibly grandparents, etc. Then we decided it was OK for women (including moms) to work. Then we restricted housing supply pushing most couples to be dual-earners (see The Two Income Trap). Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. As for child benefit (the cash) I see why it grates tbh, but I think it's meant to help avoid kids being in abject poverty. Whether it works, well, I dunno. I agree that we can't grow indefinitely, though.
        thefz 7y ago
        > Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. Employer-wise, pregnancies are a loss. You have one skilled worker parked for 1,2, or 3 years. You have to hire and train from scratch a replacement. You risk, basically.
      - undecisive 7y ago
        > The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption Not really: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-aging-population-becoming-more-of-a-problem/#7eb279a5140f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-agi... The economy might sort itself, but society has a much harder time of it. Also, there's a class discrepancy in childbirth. In many affluent countries - as you've rightly pointed out - those who can live off what paltry state benefits exist (or even see the childbirth benefits boost their incomes) will - and will procreate abundantly, relying on the state. But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. The kinds of people who engage with HN are probably the kinds of people we should be encouraging INTO childbirth, not out of it - for the sake of society as well as for the sake of the economy. And yes, there are limited resources. We need to deal with that. I don't think space travel or the next advance in GM is going to fix it all, by any stretch. We should do serious research into how to best fit the resource at hand, as a species. But high-brow fear-mongering is the worst solution pragmatically. And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). You clearly have some intelligence, so don't settle for the false economy of unfeeling intellectualism, it's counterproductive. Find real solutions, not rhetoric.
op00to 7y ago
Were you raised by wolves? On a hyper capitalist Uber kibbutz? .. you do realize you had guardians who took care of you, right?
- thefz 7y ago
  The logic behind "you were once a kid, you must want kids of your own" really escapes me.

by thefz 7y ago

CalRobert 7y ago

Is your country in a place with low birthrates and propping up its population with immigration? I don't think your view is inconsistent, necessarily, but it comes down to different views about the role of the state, whether new generations are important, etc. Anyway, in some ways we should be doing what we can do reduce birthrates as much as possible before we destroy ourselves and our life support system, but on the other hand making it possible for people to engage in about the most basic function of being an animal without destroying their lives isn't all bad.

thefz 7y ago
Low birthrates yes, just like any other European country, with the added pressure of a strong catholic presence. The state has been encouraging births as long as I remember. And while on one hand I can appreciate that everything is for the well being of newborns and a better society tomorrow, on the other all I notice are those who exploit this system to have years and years of paid leave and benefits. It's just as libertarian as it gets, but if you can't feed them, don't make them. And I don't want my tax money to go into a safety net for people who made very poor life decisions.
- fastbeef 7y ago
  Will you be happier with the tax money in your pocket and your local economy in the pits due to population aging?
  - thefz 7y ago
    Human population on earth has been rising since we're here. Just 100 years ago nobody would ever thought about spending public money to make new humans, and I think we all turned out fine. The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption, because in many countries incentives are not in place, and you don't hear of economies collapsing and the elderly swarming the streets in search of food because people don't pop just the right amount of babies to reach the replacement rate. And again, we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in a system of limited resources.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      100 years ago life was pretty different. It was assumed mom would be home with kids, possibly grandparents, etc. Then we decided it was OK for women (including moms) to work. Then we restricted housing supply pushing most couples to be dual-earners (see The Two Income Trap). Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. As for child benefit (the cash) I see why it grates tbh, but I think it's meant to help avoid kids being in abject poverty. Whether it works, well, I dunno. I agree that we can't grow indefinitely, though.
      - thefz 7y ago
        > Then we found out working full time and raising a 6 day old is impossible. So we said "OK you can go watch your kid a tiny bit and not get fired". And here we are. Employer-wise, pregnancies are a loss. You have one skilled worker parked for 1,2, or 3 years. You have to hire and train from scratch a replacement. You risk, basically.
    - undecisive 7y ago
      > The assumption that if we don't incentivize new births the conomy will collapse is just an assumption Not really: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-aging-population-becoming-more-of-a-problem/#7eb279a5140f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/02/21/chinas-agi... The economy might sort itself, but society has a much harder time of it. Also, there's a class discrepancy in childbirth. In many affluent countries - as you've rightly pointed out - those who can live off what paltry state benefits exist (or even see the childbirth benefits boost their incomes) will - and will procreate abundantly, relying on the state. But quite frankly, those with limited access to contraception and the work-shy will procreate anyway, whether the state boosts their income or not. Those with mortgages and careers and high IQ will not. Not that IQ is necessarily genetic, but it does tend to run in families. The kinds of people who engage with HN are probably the kinds of people we should be encouraging INTO childbirth, not out of it - for the sake of society as well as for the sake of the economy. And yes, there are limited resources. We need to deal with that. I don't think space travel or the next advance in GM is going to fix it all, by any stretch. We should do serious research into how to best fit the resource at hand, as a species. But high-brow fear-mongering is the worst solution pragmatically. And parents with babies dying in the streets is the worst solution morally (and hygienically). You clearly have some intelligence, so don't settle for the false economy of unfeeling intellectualism, it's counterproductive. Find real solutions, not rhetoric.

op00to 7y ago

Were you raised by wolves? On a hyper capitalist Uber kibbutz? .. you do realize you had guardians who took care of you, right?

thefz 7y ago
The logic behind "you were once a kid, you must want kids of your own" really escapes me.